The following post contains excerpts from a full 8,000 word article submitted, but not accepted by the American Alliance of Museums’ Leadership & Management Network on-line Journal LMN Online Press. [See my responses to 3 anonymous reviewers who recommended against publishing my proposed article in the Comment at the very bottom of this post.] Here, the first section of the original submission has been shortened substantially to allow this post to focus on the main purpose of this blog, i.e. solving the rising expectations, limited resources, resulting time poverty, task saturation, stress, & burnout problem facing many museum workers. The entire original article submission has been revised and posted on the this blog’s Resources Page https://solvetasksaturation.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/thistle-managing-expectations-stress.pdf .

Abstract:

This is an attempt to apply critical museology to the quality of working lives in museums. It is aimed at raising the profile of constantly rising—but unresourced–expectations in our field that produce task saturation leading to dangerous and unsustainable levels of stress among museum workers. Our ultimate ability to continue achieving excellence and meeting performance objectives depends on how well we can create solutions to deal with these dilemmas. The first issue of LMN Online Press (August 2014) is analysed to demonstrate the prevalence of the problem among museum leaders. I apply the general literature on the sociology and psychology of work to analyse the situation of constantly rising expectation in the museum field in a context where resources are static or declining. Ways and means for museum leaders to manage rising expectations and stress on museum workers are addressed in order to challenge the prevailing “more with less” culture that often morphs into what is essentially a psychotic need to accomplish “everything with nothing” (Posen 2013, 5; cf. McIsaac et al. 2013, 5).

Introduction:

Review and analysis of the first American Alliance of Museums Leadership and Management Network’s LMN Online Press (August 2014) (LMNOP) issue will be instructive as I begin to make my case.

It must be said at the outset that LMNOP exhibits a clear excellence-driven enthusiasm that is typical in the museum field. I do want to challenge readers, however, to reflect on each offering in the August 2014 issue from the perspective of the increased—yet unresourced—expectations represented.

Incoming Chair Charlotte Montgomery: plans “restructuring,” “revamping,” “expand Board diversity,” “taking content to regional meetings,” and states “None of these thingscan be accomplished without the hard work and dedication of the Board and LMN membership.”

Ditto comment on above bullet. A strong case can be made that both paid and volunteer museum work often is characterized by ‘task saturation’ defined as the lack of time, tools, and resources to achieve objectives (Murphy 2008) [I would add the word chronic to this definition because of continually rising unresourced expectations (Thistle 2013a, 22)], ‘time poverty’ (Schor 1991, xx, 5; 2003, 6-11), and the resulting stress (Posen 2013, 2 passim).

Bonnie Styles: despite welcome—but extremely rare—50% time reduction and 75% shorter self-study in the AAM accreditation process, mentions that now the “new [emphasis added] Core Documents Verification program must be completed first.”

Mountains of new standards continue to erupt in the museum field absent new resources to enable already overloaded museum workers to implement them (Thistle 2011, 10). AAM Museum News editors ran an article on new standards by AAM director of Museum Advancement and Excellence Elizabeth E. Merritt (2005) with the title “Running in Place, But Faster: New Changes in Museum Standards.” The piece was sub-headed by the quote from Lewis Carol’s Through the Looking Glass: “It takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place.” Merritt admitted its applicability in the museum field—but sadly did not analyze its relevance to the impact of the continual ramping up of museum standards on museum practitioners. In my view, whether intentional or not, the quote from Carol serves as an unaddressed critique of the impact of standards on museum work in Merritt’s article. Why use the quote and related image if it is not addressed substantively in the article and simply a throw-away line?

It must be said here that nothing I argue is against the ultimate value of museum standards or other pursuits of excellence in the museum field. I do, however, maintain that the impact of standards and other expectation inflation in our field—absent sufficient resources to implement them—must not be allowed to escape critical museology as defined by Ross (2004, 84). Also see my comment on the bullet below.

I wish to emphasize again here that nothing I have presented above is meant as a criticism of any of the dedicated museum professionals who contributed to the first issue of LMNOP nor about the ultimate ideal value of anything recommended to the readers. They all represent the exemplary values and the commendable drive for excellence in our field. This blog post is simply to attempt to look critically at continually rising—yet unresourced—expectations in museum leader thinking. Museum managers need to become aware of the museum worker task saturation problem and to start to consider implementing potential solutions to, or at least ways and means of ameliorating, rising expectations, task saturation, stress, and burnout among our paid staff & volunteers.

Nevertheless, after reading the first issue of LMNOP and given my own work experience over 26+ years in the museum field as well as my thinking and writing about task saturation among museum workers since 1990 (Thistle 1990), my first question is: From where have and where will all of the resources—especially time and personal energies—necessary to meet the rising expectations noted above come? For the intended audience of LMNOP I ask this important question in light of author of the challenging book Museums in a Troubled World Robert Janes’ (2009, 64) observation that many museum directors already are “hopelessly overburdened.” Beyond the overload suffered by museum leaders, Dubé (2001, 8-9) carried out one of the extremely rare formal research studies on museum working conditions. He and discovered a “general state of fatigue” and significant levels of “burnout” at all levels of museum work in Quebec. Recent research by Museums Journal in the UK reports a majority (65%) of museum professionals say that greater demands on them as a result of funding cuts, has created increased stress among workers in this field (Sullivan 2015).

Among the extensive expectations for museum workers propounded by the Canadian Museums Association are: possession of skills that analyse, create alternatives, act to minimise problems, and value original approaches to problem-solving (Canadian Museums Human Resource Planning Committee 1997, 15). Surely, these skills can be applied to solving—or at least ameliorating—our expectation inflation and task saturation dilemmas in museum workplaces.

Based on the literature dealing with the general sociology of work and the rather rare relevant museum-specific research on this question, recommendations on how the problem can be addressed follow:

Organization-Wide Solutions:

The first step toward any solutions to the dilemma of increasing—yet unresourced—expectations, task saturation, long hours, overwork, stress, and burnout in the museum field is to acknowledge that the problem exists (cf. Posen 2013, 321). “The workload, deadlines, pressures to perform, long hours, and all the other workplace stressors will never be addressed unless we acknowledge that there is a problem and take it seriously” (Posen 2013, 68). In my work trying to raise the profile of this issue, I have encountered some denial and resistance from the leadership in the museum field (cf. Posen 2013, 73, 141). From their research, Higgins et al. (2007, 35, 103) report management’s “strong resistance” to dealing directly with the problem. In my view it is long past time to apply critical museology to the situation and to begin addressing it vigorously (Thistle 2013, 22; 2011, 16 passim).

Organizations need to take the responsibility for action on reducing the impact of ‘more, better, faster’ culture on their workers (Duxbury and Higgins 2012b, 4-6). The problem is systemic. “Self-care” by the employee is not sufficient to avoid the negative consequences to the individual workers or the organization’s productivity. It is the organization that is the primary source of the pressures to overwork” (Posen 2013, 5, 49; cf. Higgins et al. 2007, 160). Therefore, it is museum organisations that need to implement coping mechanisms such as alternate work arrangements, flexibility, hours, supportive supervisors, above and beyond family-centric policies (Higgins 2007, 31).

We must stop demanding increased volume and velocity of work (Posen 2013, 321) to meet many laudable objectives for which museums typically possess insufficient human resources. Dr. Posen adds “abuse” by supervisors to his list of the three most important causes of stress at work (Posen 2013, 247). Obviously, museum managers must avoid abusing workers or exploiting their love for the job (Posen 2013, 5-6).

We will need to work hard at changing the culture of unrealistic expectations and overwork in museum workplaces by significantly reducing unresourced expectations as well as the pace and undue pressures to work long hours. Long hours are foolish, unkind, short-sighted, and counterproductive (Posen 2013, 297). A comprehensive review of labour standards in Canada has recommended the 8-hour work day be maintained and that no worker should “be subject to coercion, or . . . be required to work so many hours that he or she is effectively denied a personal or civic life” (Arthurs 2006,x, xiii).

If we add one task to a workload, we should subtract a similar amount of work (Posen 2013, 296). This is especially necessary for fully loaded camels in the museum field so as to avoid the risk of eventually breaking their backs with just “one more straw.”

The above approach would be wise museum management because prevention of stress and burnout is more cost-efficient than treatment of stress-related physical and mental illness (Posen 2013, 292). At the 2014 Canadian Museums Association conference trade show, an exhibitor from the firm that handles the Association’s insurance program told me that mental illness claims due to stress now have gained substantially on physical injury claims. Research in the health insurance field from 2009 reports 51% of respondents “experienced higher levels of stress than acceptable level” (Group Health Global Partners 2009). The Sanofi-avena Healthcare Survey 2011 found that 35% of respondents agree that “workplace stress has been so overwhelming that it has made them physically ill at times, during the past year” Sanofi 2011, 18).

Dr. David Posen provides lists of actions that can be taken by employers to manage stress—a critical necessity, not a luxury—for healthy workplaces (Posen 2013, 87). Among his many recommendations are:

“Stress is a fact of life, but it does not have to be a way of life” (Posen 2013, 303).

Monitor levels of worker energy, tension, and ability to focus positions measured on the Human Function Curve to allow remedial action when they “pass the hump”

Solicit direct, anonymous feedback on worker status on the curve

Don’t allow crossing the unhealthy stress level line too far or for too long

Ensure that workers take time outs, breaks, meals, exercise, social time in gathering places (Posen 2013, 91-93, 292-307 passim), and see my blog post on vacation.

Supervisors must become alert to the occurrence of signs of stress (Posen 2013, 112). Front-line managers need to focus on and improve their ‘people management’ practices (Higgins et al. 2007, 237). Managers must take care to manage energy outputs of their workers (Posen 2013, 80). I believe that this especially important because of the “occupational devotee” character of museum workers (see Stebbins ix, 10).

Pay strict attention to how we respond to the ever-increasing demands on museum institutions and individual paid and volunteer staff members in consideration of the human resources actually available to carry out goals to the level of excellence desired. In short, we must manage rising expectations. As Janes (2009: 156) reminds us, deciding what not to do is a crucial part of rational planning (cf. Ury 2007). Can we not ethically match museum goals to the resources actually available? Is it “strategic,” or sustainable, much less ethical to continue attempting to operate museums by “hopelessly overburdening” our employees?

One such source of increased expectations is the impact of rising professional standards in the museum field (cf. Janes 2009, 19). One unexamined–yet I believe highly significant–aspect of this issue is that the AAM defines standards as “generally accepted levels that all museums are expected to achieve” [emphasis added]. This definition of a professional standard museum creates “a trap that makes museum work increasingly complex and even absurd” Dubé (2001, 8) [emphasis added]. Dubé (2001) has recommended that we should develop an alternate model of what standards small and medium-sized museums can, could, and should be expected to achieve.

HR departments as employers need to become true “Resources for Humanity” [comment by a participant at the 2012 AAM brainstorming session in Minneapolis. See Solutions! (Thistle2014c, 8)].

I believe Gurian (1995, 20-21) makes a crucial case for this: “Even if impaired work performance were not the outcome of unabated staff stress, I would proffer another, and perhaps better, reason to pay attention to staff needs. If our work in museums is evidence of our collective commitment to enhancing the quality of life for society, then we must be attentive to maintaining a high quality of life for our work community.”

Use the organizational principle of kaisen (Japanese for continual learning and constant improvement) and concentrate on the realm of reducing stress points for staff (Posen 2013, 300). It is notable that Japanese organizations, once notorious for the atrocious rates of karioshi (Japanese for “work to death”), have been able turn a 45 degree angle rate of increase into a decline at the same rate (Kanani 2006, 170). Those charged with managing museum workers need to investigate how the Japanese have made such significant progress in the fight against “work to death.”

Organizational solutions list from Higgins et al. (2007, 204-10):

Increase management support for stressed staff and decrease the number of non-supportive managers

Listen to employee concerns

Make managers available to answer staff concerns

Plan the work effectively

Ask for input before making decisions that affect the amount and intensity of work

Share information with employees and provide feedback on performance

Organization solutions list from Schultz and Schultz (2006, 365-8):

Provide daycare at work

Flex scheduling

Increase the control workers have over the rate of work and mandated overtime

Hire supervisors who support worker quality of working life

Make use of part-time and telecommuting options

Reduce role ambiguity and role conflict

Provide stress management training and/or resources

Make fitness programs available

Middle Management Solutions:

As recommended by those commenting on the general world of work (Duxbury and Higgins 2012, 12; Edmonson and Detert 2005, 406-7), employers must attend to the behaviours of immediate supervisors and their relationships with staff as the primary variable in an organization’s ability to deal with unresourced rising expectations leading to overload and stress. This chronic stress must be reduced not only to sustain employee well-being but to prevent loss of organizational efficiency and productivity (Posen 2013, 115; Schultz and Schultz 2006, 374).

Change the ‘willing slaves’ syndrome by “humanizing the workplace” (Bunting 2004, 270 ff., 325) in order to seek reductions in the common situation of overwork and to create the possibility of more work/personal life “balance” for museum staff (cf. Duxbury & Higgins 2012b, 11-12). Museum managers must begin to plan and act as if we truly believe that ‘people are a museum organization’s most important asset.’ As noted above, protecting our human resources from work intensification, overwork, and debilitating stress loads is an ethical obligation in the museum field (American Association of Museums 2000, 2; International Council of Museums 2006, 1). In light of museum ethical standards, “There is no point in occupying the ethical high ground if that results in museums becoming unsustainable” (Museums Association (UK) 2008, 4). I firmly believe that safeguarding museum staff and volunteers from damaging unreasonable expectations, work intensification, long hours, stress, and burnout is just as important as our legal responsibility for their physical safety in constructing exhibits for example. Museum employers need to ensure our workforce is functioning at safe, sustainable levels of intensity and workloads.

In this regard, we need to realize that we attempting to change culture—the culture of overwork in museums and this is primarily a leadership issue (Posen 2013, 303; Duxbury and Higgins 2012, 10, 11-12, 13; Burke 2009, 171). As Karen Kienzle intimates in the first issue of LMN Online Press, organizational culture change is neither easy nor quickly done. Although it is the museum labour system that needs to change, it is not simply a matter of writing policy (Edmonson and Detert 2005, 409). Absolutely critical is the real world practice of what managers expect of our human resources! I believe strongly that museum managers must renounce always “doing more with less or everything with nothing” (Posen 2013, 5). Solutions need to be directed at the system of work intensification driven by the museum workers striving for excellence as well as collegial, visitor, management, board, and broader social expectations.

Her recent work on museum worker well-being prompted Andrea Michelbach to state:

The responsibility for museum professionals and the field lies in fostering the well-being of dedicated individuals on both an institutional and a personal level since committed individuals may be at additional risk of burnout (Schultz & Schultz, 2006). Museum supervisors and workplace policymakers need to consider the impact of current demands on their staff while also bearing in mind how such demands could compromise the well-being, and retention, of their staff for the future (Michelbach 2013, 67, cf. 68; cf. McIsaac 2013, 21).

One of the most crucial measures needed to restore workplace sustainability for museum staff and volunteers in my view has been stated succinctly by Dr. David Posen: “Most importantly, modify unrealistic expectations” (Posen 2013, 112). I have been attempting to make this point for those of us in the museum field for more than a quarter century now (Thistle 1990, 1).

Attend to and improve ‘people management’ practices to focus on the people part of managers’ jobs (Higgins et al. 2007, 237). Supervisors must take care to manage the energy of their workers (Posen 2013, 80). I believe that this especially important because of the “occupational devotee” characteristics of museum workers.

Essentially, museum managers have two choices: i) match expectations to levels supported by reasonably sufficient existing human resources or ii) hire more staff (cf. Posen 2013,60-1, 136, 323 passim). To continue current museum practice to run “lean and mean” and “press on regardless” to “do more with less” is short-sighted in the extreme because it not only harms worker health, it also undermines productivity (Posen 2013, 58-9, 136).

Focus on output rather than time at work. Understand that long hours, working harder, and doing it faster are counterproductive (Posen 2013, 92, 96).

Gurian (1995, 20) writes about the dangers of the psychological consequences of workplace stress for staff and asserts that museum management has a responsibility to attend to the psychological and emotional well-being of staff.

Museum priorities require attention to what is important vs. the urgent. Posen (2013, 125) cites Stephen Corey’s The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People in making this point.

A number of other recommendations to management for solving the problem are given by Dr. David Posen (2013, 125, 147, 291-325).

Individual Solutions:

As is the case for managers, individual workers need to make regular checks on where you are situated on the Human Function Curve and to be aware of when you “pass the hump” (Posen 2013, 91-2, 112). Appropriate responses include time outs, breaks, meals, exercise, social experiences, and vacations. See my previous blog post on the importance of vacation.

A participant at the “Fully Loaded Camels: Strategies for Survival” brainstorming session of the British Columbia Museums Association conference in Prince George in 2006 suggested “Say no; we need to take a stand” (Thistle 2014c, 3). This is rather easy for a museum worker to say in a conference session, but much more difficult to put into practice on the job. In order to be successful with such a strategy, William Ury, Director of the Global Negotiation Project at Harvard, presents a plan of action that I highly recommend. It bases ‘No’ on first saying a positive ‘Yes’ to the individual’s own values [e.g. volunteering with community organizations], life situation [e.g. workload], and core interests [e.g. work/family conflict (Higgins et al. 2007, 194)]. Then, negotiation is required to jointly create a plan of action for dealing with unreasonable demands in the real world (Ury 2007, 2, 17-18, 34, 43, 80-1, passim).

Finally, I will add some of my personal suggestions about solutions here:

First for managers and individual museum workers, take care of your own best interests up front so you can preserve your ability to work to full capacity without the debilitating effects of stress (Ury 2007; Posen 2013).

Provide time and space for staff returning to work from training so they actually can implement learnings gained from training sessions. Professional development participants could attempt to solve the typical expectation inflation problem during professional development events by asking trainers: How do I find the time and personal energies to implement what I just learned? Concerned museum workers also could pass resolutions at professional museum organization AGMs that would encourage, if not require, trainers presenting training programmes offered by the association to address how to implement new learnings when learners return to work where already overflowing lists of tasks await.

Museum professional development instructors need to provide suggestions for example on exactly what can be dropped from a full-to-overflowing load of existing museum worker tasks in order to put their presentations into practice.

Don’t allow the plethora of ‘oughts’ and ‘shoulds’ piled unheedingly on our workloads to produce the warning signs of task saturation identified by James Murphy 2000, 130-9), former USAF fighter pilot turned business consultant:

compartmentalising, avoiding the large overwhelming tasks, hiding overload through busy-work, making lists of things to do rather than actually doing them

channelizing, choosing to do only one task and ignoring everything else–with eyes fixed on one cockpit dial, flying your high-tech fighter plane [or museum operation] into the ground.

Abandon the rampant pessimism! I hear constantly ‘Everyone is in the same boat, so we can’t do anything about it.’ If we are to accept Robert Janes’ (2009) challenge to involve museums in solving world problems, l suggest that applying the creativity expected of museum workers by the CMA above could identify ways and means of effectively dealing with our own problem. These could then be ‘sold’ to the rest of the working world also burdened by rising expectations and task saturation. Even though we cannot prove for certain that Margaret Mead ever stated “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has[,]” the quality of this wisdom remains beyond dispute. Surely, the problem can never be solved by saying or doing nothing about it. Indeed, speaking up is the first step toward achieving sustainable balance in working lives (Edmonson and Detert 2005, 422).

Beyond funders and regulators, museum trustees and other like stakeholders tend to bring a constant stream of bright new ideas to the table. The danger of engaging in what I call “management by the next bright idea” when the last bright idea has not yet been implemented fully is an issue that also requires serious attention (Thistle 2011, 3). I strongly advise that we stop managing museums by the next bright idea. Instead, we must spend existing limited resources to consolidate the last bright idea before moving on (cf. McIsaac et al. 2013, 5).

Museum workers must start being brutally realistic about what is doable given the relatively minuscule human and other resources actually available compared to our own lofty expectations and those placed on us by others. Trying to do too much to meet the exponential expectations curve simply reduces the quality of everything we attempt–not to mention the quality of our own working lives. Instead, let us determine to do a few top priorities well (cf. Barton 2014; Babauta 2009), rather than attempt everything expected of us in an under-resourced and therefore unavoidably and frustratingly mediocre–not to mention personally stressful–fashion.

Museum-specific research on quality of working lives is required to justify the need in the museum field to overcome denial of and resistance to acting upon the problem (see Thistle 2013; Kahn and Garden 1994, 211; Thistle 2013c, 11 passim).

I began this piece by pointing out the number of unresourced expectations found in the first issue of the American Alliance of Museums Leadership and Management Network’s LMN Online Press (August 2014). Obviously, in my argument I have raised many more expectations for readers. My main purpose here, however, has been to raise the profile of the museum worker task saturation problem among the leaders and managers in the museum field. I aim to generate a conversation about how we might best manage the way museum workers are forced to deal with rising expectations absent sufficient resources. Clearly, expectation inflation in the museum field must be managed as a rather high priority.

I believe strongly that museum professionals and our managers cannot continue to work in the manner that we typically do. We are burning out our human resources and this is not sustainable. We must begin thinking and talking about changing the existing museum constantly ‘doing more with less’ work culture. Museum managers need to care for our own work/life balance and that of our employees and volunteers so as to avoid burning ourselves to a crisp.

Now is the time for creating a new vision for quality of working life in the museum field and implementing effective actions to manage rising unresourced expectations and the resulting unaddressed task saturation and untreated stress among museum workers (cf. Posen 2013, 322-3) so that Museums Can Change the World.

[Note that my responses to the 3 anonymous reviewers who recommended my article not be accepted are contained in the Comment at the very bottom of this post.]

References Cited:

American Association of Museums. 2000. Code of Ethics for Museums. Washington: American Association of Museums.

Duxbury, Linda and Higgins, Christopher. 2012a. Key Findings. Revisiting Work-Life Issues in Canada: The 2012 National Study on Balancing Work and Caregiving in Canada. Ottawa: Carleton University & the University of Western Ontario.

Kanani, Atsuko. 2006. “Economic and Employment Conditions, karioshi (work to death) and the Trend of Studies on Workaholism in Japan.” In Research Companion to Working Time and Work Addiction, Ronald J. Burke ed. Cheltenham, UK & Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar.

Ury, William. 2007. The Power of a Positive No: How to Say No and Still Get to Yes. New York: Bantam Dell.

Endnotes:

[i] Gurian writes about major “traumatic” change events in museum institutions but, in the Post-Modern world of work, change now is not characterized by single, but rather serial, events and the resulting stresses accumulate unabatedly. The pace of Post-Modern work is so high that there is no time for recovery or consolidation. We are infected by “hurry sickness” (Green 2006, 44, 46, 52, 57, 61, 64; cf. Bunting 2004, 37; Posen 2013, 166 passim).

Paul C. Thistle has more than 26 years of museum management and mission work experience. He has taught museum studies at Beloit College and for professional museum organizations in Canada. He has been thinking and writing about the task saturation problem since 1990 and currently writes the Solving Task Saturation for Museum Workers Blog.

What follows are my responses to 3 anonymous reviewers who commented on my original submission to the American Alliance of Museums Leadership & Management Network LMN Online Press. I thank these reviewers for their input. Their comments flag issues which are often raised regarding my work on the task saturation maters among museum workers & I wish to address them in this comment space associated with my Blog post. Because of the limited formatting available in this comment section, the reviewers’ comments are shown in “quotation marks” & my responses are shown in [square brackets].

[The following comments were forwarded to the author by e-mail & are provided here in their entirety:]

FIRST REVIEWER: “Regarding the proposed article from Paul Thistle, he raises some potentially interesting issues but it needs more work before it could be considered for publication. I don’t mind the provocative tone, but it lacks focus, evidence and a cohesive argument.”

[As made clear in the introduction to my original submission, the structure of proposed article was after all a direct response to the content first issue of LMNOP in the order it was posted on-line to LMN members. Focus, evidence beyond the 57 sources quoted in my original submission, & cohesive argumentation can be found in my Blog posts & the article-length analyses found on the Task Saturation Documents Blog page in the Thistle Managing Expectations & Stress entry .]

“I think he may have a point about the burden caused by increased emphasis on universal museum standards, but he needs to flesh out this idea and provide evidence to support the assertion.]

[I was given no limit as to the extent of my submission & probably should not have worried about its already 8,000 word length. Admittedly, I have done no ‘primary’ research on the impact of standards on the quality of museum working lives. However, it also must be said neither have the professional museum organisations that create standards &, as I point out in my piece, expect them to be implemented by ‘all museums’ without any apparent consideration of the lack of resources available to do so.]

[In fact, standards regimes have long been a serious issue for small museums. Thirty years ago, the Canadian Museums Association (1986, 3) identified the main concerns among small museums with respect to the question of standards: i) the failure to take into account the lack of resources available to small museums; ii) the tendency for standards to be based on “ivory tower” ideals which do not address the real needs of small museums; and iii) the potential for setting up invidious comparisons with richer museums. The serious challenges to the very survival of museums resulting from the history of the implementation of Ontario’s provincial museum standards for example has been analysed by Mary Tivy. Her evidence in the Ontario case demonstrates that efforts to meet the standards actually put museum sustainability at risk (Tivy 2006, 32, 43). Robert Janes (2009, 19) includes high professional standards among “the multifarious and often contradictory requirements of museum work” that so challenge—and indeed “hopelessly overburden”—modern museum workers, diverting them from addressing current crises in the world. Also see my 1994 critique of the implementation of a new museum standards regime in Manitoba found on this Blog’s Task Saturation Documents Page at https://solvetasksaturation.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/standards-critique-letter-highlighted.pdf .]

[I agree that high professional standards certainly are desirable as ideal targets for museum performance. However, standards regimes that include numerous UNREACHABLE goals can be counterproductive. Following Lynne Kurylo’s analysis of the standards regime in Ontario (Kurylo 1984), my view is that the focus of professional museum organisations engaged in implementing standards tends to be exclusively on the improvement of museum operations, but ignores the necessary substantive attention being paid to establishing the material conditions required by museums to actually improve and flourish by implementing standards. Without sufficient resources, it is museum workers labouring under existing full burdens of task who bear the entire burden of implementing standards. I repeat from my original article submitted for review: Philippe Dubé, Professeur titulaire et Directeur du Laboratoire de muséologie et d’ingénierie de la culture at l’Université Laval (who has studied the situation in Quebec, Canada) has argued that the “general state of fatigue” and “burnout” among museum workers is due in large measure to formal expectations of performance that are based on “an official definition that small and medium-sized museums simply cannot meet” (Dubé 2001, 8-9). He states that this definition of a professional standard museum creates “a trap that makes museum work increasingly complex, and even ABSURD” [EMPHASIS added]. Dubé recommended that we should develop an alternate model of what small and medium-sized museums can, could, and should be. Unfortunately, Professor Dubé reports that his proposal received scant attention in the museum world (Dubé, 2007).]

[More recently, as outlined in my proposed article, AAM Director of Museum Advancement and Excellence Elizabeth E. Merritt (2005) apparently agrees with me—at least on the face of it—in her Museum News article titled “Running in Place, But Faster: New Changes in Museum Standards.” Merritt uses the quote from Lewis Carol’s Through the Looking Glass: “It takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place,” so admits its applicability in the museum field. Sadly, she did not analyze at all its relevance to the actual impact of the continual ramping up of museum standards on museum practitioners. I rest my case on the question of standards until such time as professional museum organisations can be persuaded that the impact of their regimes of professional museum standards on the quality of working lives in museums requires some critical museology investigation.]

“He’s got some good information on what he calls “task saturation” but fails to explain why this is a different/more important issue for museums than it is for any other type of organization. Are any of these problems unique to museums?”

[I make no special case for task saturation being unique in the museum field. As argued in my proposed LMNOP article however, I do maintain that museum workers arguably are more at risk of task saturation than other workers because we are “occupational devotees” and I continually cite Stebbins (2004) as support for my assertion. I am continually criticised for not providing evidence, but I do always cite the scarce evidence available in the museum literature—most recently Sullivan (2015) who reports a majority (65%) of museum professionals say that greater demands on them as a result of funding cuts, has created increased stress among museum workers. I have long argued that formal research is needed on this overwork expectations issue in the museum field (e.g. Thistle 2013, 11 passim).]

“Are proposed solutions simply good management techniques or are they museum specific?

[Many solutions are not museum-specific at all, so does this mean that good management techniques from the general world of work are irrelevant to museum managers? Regardless of whether or not solutions are museum-specific, museum managers cannot expect to be exempt from general criticism—albeit, without research at this stage, mainly anecdotal—of approaches damaging to their staff arising out of their management of museum institutions.]

“Does he believe that museums suffer from worse management than other organizations? If so, why?”

[I don’t believe museum managers necessarily are worse than others outside our field, except that, as argued in my original article submitted for review, I observe that museum managers often do depend on museum workers’ love for our jobs to accomplish more than available resources allow & that this amounts to exploitation of museum workforces (see Thistle 2014). I also pointed out in the original article submitted that the ethics policies adopted by professional museum organisations commit to protecting human resources along with their collections (American Association of Museums 2000, 2; International Council of Museums, 2006, 1).]

“There are some intriguing issues here worthy of exploration – if he wanted to focus on just one and was willing to make it cohesive.”

[As stated clearly in my Introduction to my article submission & noted above, the fact is I was reacting to the entire first issue of LMNOP as it was published. My point is that rising–but unresourced–expectations undermine the quality of working lives in museums & endanger paidstaff & volunteer health (cf.Posen 2013).]

SECOND REVIEWER: “I might be a little slow on the uptake here, but this seems less like an article and more like an accumulation of data points that has yet to be analyzed. It’s not very readable.”

[Ditto the above explanation that the piece was proposed as a direct response to & overall analysis of the first issue of LMNOP. I believe that I did provide documented analysis of the expectations raised by the articles in the published journal issue.]

“He also inserts quite a bit of personal anecdote in there as well (I, we, our), which to me undermines his attempt for a scientific approach. I agree with the other reviewer that it lacks a cohesive argument.”

[As a museum worker, I make no apology for relying on my 26+ years of experience in the field, my reading in the literature & observations about how museums operate, my teaching Museum Studies based on the theme of rising expectations, nor for attempting to engage in “critical museology” that is defined as a critical stance toward old assumptions and ways of working (Ross 2004: 84). This is particularly the case in light of the dearth of formal research on the question at hand in the museum field. I use the term “we” because I legitimately belong to a group of workers with whom I believe I have common cause—just as those who are members of the Museum Leadership & Management Network do.]

“The data doesn’t also portend that this is a unique phenomenon to museums.”

[I do not believe it is wrong for me to think globally & apply locally in the museum field. I have made this point elsewhere & I need to repeat it here for clarity’s sake. I make absolutely no special case about museum work being unique in the struggles with overwork—except in relationship to museum workers as “occupational devotees” (Stebbins 2004, ix, 10, 17). Indeed, there are few recent formal studies on this problem in the museum field other than Sullivan (2015), Michelbach (2013), Dubé (2001), and Kahn & Garden (1994). It is, however, abundantly clear from the general sociology of work cited in my original submission that task saturation, time poverty, & resulting stress is a major problem for all workers in the Post-Modern world. This in no way reduces the significance of the problem for workers in the museum field because we love what we do.]

“A few of the graphics don’t even contain numbers, they just show fluctuating lines.”

[My first graphic in Figure 1 referred to (see the Task Saturation Media Page on this Blog) is a “conceptual” one as a short form for a thousand words. I regret not using that word “conceptual” in the original caption. I had assumed that the context was clear. I have made this addition in the PDF of the full Thistle Managing Expectations & Stress Thistle Managing Expectations & Stress article in this Blog’s Task Saturation Documents page.]

“I don’t have a lot of specific feedback to offer him, other than I think he needs to strengthen his thesis and write an article that refers to the data rather than responds to them in the body of the text.”

[Data do not exist because there is a dearth of formal research on this question focussed on museums. My writing tries to generate momentum to persuade the powers that be in the museum field, including members of the AAM Leadership & Management Network, to push for such large-scale research to gather meaningful relevant data. I also do constantly cite Duxbury & Higgins (2012) who provide ample data from their 20-year longitudinal studies of Canadian workers using samples that closely match the characteristics of workers in the museum field. These are all the substantial data that are available to me.]

“His is obviously passionate about this topic but the way he goes about writing about it is not palatable. And I would never read it. He sounds angry.”

[Should museum workers who are expected to labour under conditions of rising—yet unresourced—expectations, & the resulting task saturation, time poverty, stress & burnout not be “angry” about what is arguably the blatant exploitation of paid staff & volunteers which is contrary to museum ethical statements (Thistle 2014)? Should we not use critical museology about how museums are operated? In a like circumstance, should natural history museum workers not be “angry” about unheeding destruction of habitat—those of wild animals if not those of human beings? Robert Janes (2009), author of Museums in a Troubled World, challenges museums to engage in solving such crises in today’s world. I believe strongly that exploitation of all workers in all sectors is a serious problem that begs for solutions. I believe strongly that any so-called “anger” in my work can be classified as righteous, given the circumstances & the failure of museums to implement the ethical standards espoused in our field.]

THIRD REVIEWER: “I can honestly say at my small museum that when I came on board everyone worked like hamsters on a wheel. But now that we have a business model and clear strategic plan, staffing structure, etc. We operate much more efficiently. We have a decision screen for all new programs and projects. So that staff do not become overworked by needing to implement every idea expressed by me, a board member, donor or volunteer. If the idea doesn’t pass the screen it doesn’t happen. It’s all about working to scale. In fact we’ve reduced our operating budget to more manageable scale as well. And everyone is cross trained. So as staff come and go we can continue the critical work that needs to happen.”

[Obviously, what is described by this reviewer is a marvelously effective solution to the problem that I describe in my article submission as management by the next bright idea without consolidating work on the last bright idea (also see Thistle 2011). My return question to him/her is: Do the majority of museums currently operate this efficiently & effectively? The most recent evidence I have seen in Nicola Sullivan’s (2015) report on recent research by Museums Journal in the UK that finds a majority (65%) of museum professionals who say that greater demands on them as a result of funding cuts have created increased stress among museum workers (Sullivan 2015). I suggest that, in the UK at least—and elsewhere too I would hypothesise—a majority of museum workers are NOT employed by such sustainably well-run institutions.]

“And I don’t agree that the Museums are doing more with less. I think Museums are doing more with more!”

[If this were indeed the case for a large number—or even a significant minority of museum institutions like the third reviewer’s—I would very much like to see data that would identify from where are more resources coming & those that refute the frequency of the statements by museum managers adduced in my proposed article & the Blog post that this comment accompanies. I quote museum managers announcing staff layoffs & cutbacks stating that “more” could & would be done with “less” (cf. (Posen 2013, 58-9, 136). I also point the third reviewer to the following statement of Julie Hart that was not included this Blog post, but did appear in my original submission & is available in the slightly revised Thistle Managing Expectations & Stress article located on the Task Saturation Documents page of this Blog.]

[Julie Hart, AAM’s Sr. Director, Museum Standards and Excellence (with contributions from other AAM staff), wrote for attribution via e-mail to the author on 28 October 2009 in response to my questions about museum worker task saturation issues:]

[. . . we are left with the challenge of increasing resources available to institutions. AAM devotes a huge amount of its waking hours to just this challenge, through advocacy, training, and publications, and in almost every area in which we are active. . . (As you can guess, there is no one right answer. Part of it is institutional and managerial; part of it is personal responsibility and ambition. The truth is the way we work is changing and will never be the same as it was. There will NEVER BE ENOUGH RESOURCES (time, staff, money) to do everything we want/need to do (Hart 2012) [EMPHASIS added. See Thistle (2012) for my criticism of Hart’s position.].

[In conclusion to my response to reviewer comments, my main point is that I believe the arguments presented in my original LMNOP submission do need to be added to the conversation in the museum field about the role of museum management in the existence of chronic unresourced rising expectations, task saturation, stress, & burnout among many museum workers.]

References Cited:

American Association of Museums. 2006. Code of Ethics for Museums (Washington: American Association of Museums.

Canadian Museums Association. 1986. Final Report: Feasibility Study National Standards for Museums. Ottawa: Canadian Museums Association.

Tivy, Mary Elizabeth. 2006. “The Local History Museum in Ontario: An Intellectual History 1851-1985. A thesis presented to the University of Waterloo in fulfillment of the thesis requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History.” Waterloo, ON: University of Waterloo. http://etd.uwaterloo.ca/etd/metivy2006.pdf (accessed 13 September 20013).